ILNews

Proposed criminal justice complex draws 5 bidders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Five groups of developers have responded to Indianapolis' call for candidates to build a new criminal justice complex.

The groups, whom city officials would not identify, have national and international experience and have worked on similar facilities, Mayor Greg Ballard's spokesman Marc Lotter said. The deadline for responding to the city's request for qualifications was Tuesday.

A review team of city and county officials, plus private-sector advisers, will narrow the field by sometime this spring, Lotter said.

Ballard and local law enforcement officials want to relocate and consolidate county jails, criminal courts and other related functions from disparate locations in the southeast quadrant of downtown. That could free up valuable real estate for development, as well as office space in the cramped City-County Building.

A recent market survey identified land near Indianapolis International Airport as the leading site, but the location is drawing criticism from judges, lawyers and residents.

The complex would require as much as 35 acres of land and add 1,000 jail beds and 30 new courtrooms. Lotter said the location will be chosen in time to present it to the finalist bidders, who will then be asked to draw up specific plans.

Ballard's office is meeting with lawyers, judges and other stakeholders to discuss their concerns and potential sites for the complex.

City-County Council President Maggie Lewis said she has been inundated with calls from people concerned about not having a centralized, downtown location for courts and related services, as well as from west-side residents who don't want jails in their area. She's trying to organize town hall meetings on the topic for March.

The developers who responded to the city's request also were asked to discuss scenarios for financing the project. The complex is expected to cost $200 million to $400 million — or more. Lotter said city officials aren't talking about the cost because they hope competition from the private sector will drive it down.

On that point, Lotter mentioned advantages of the airport site.

“We already own the property. It’s already off the tax rolls. Utilities are already out there in abundance," he said. "All of that can come into play to help drive down the cost."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT